DOCSLIB.ORG

Implementing Start Ii

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Implementing Start Ii CBO PAPERS IMPLEMENTING START II March 1993 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE CBO PAPERS IMPLEMENTING START II March 1993 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE SECOND AND D STREETS, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 NOTES All costs and savings are expressed in 1993 dollars of budget authority. Numbers in tables may not add to the totals indicated because of rounding. The Bush Administration's plan used in this paper is drawn from the official January 1992 budget request, modified to reflect announced policy changes that followed from the START II Treaty. It does not, however, incorporate the January 1993 unofficial budget proposal offered by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney. PREFACE On January 3, 1993, during the final weeks of his presidency, George Bush and his Russian counterpart, Boris Yeltsin, signed the START II Treaty. Building on the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) Treaty that Presidents Bush and Gorbachev had signed 18 months before, START II would cut strategic nuclear forces to only one-third of their current levels and permit spending on nuclear weapons programs to be reduced by billions of dollars a year. Even though much nuclear arms control has just been completed, a number of questions remain. First, will Ukraine ratify START, and will both Russia and the United States ratify START II? If the answer to these questions is yes, a host of others will arise. How should the United States then structure its nuclear forces to minimize budgetary costs while providing adequate deterrence and safety? What additional arms control initiatives might impede nuclear proliferation, enhance controls over excess Russian nuclear weapons, and improve security in other ways? This paper, prepared at the request of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget, addresses these questions. It summarizes the Bush Administration's plan for nuclear forces; in addition, it develops and analyzes two options for implementing the START II treaty that would emphasize nuclear nonproliferation policy and reduce budgetary costs further. In keeping with the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) mandate, the paper makes no recommendations. Michael O'Hanlon, Eugene Bryton, and Raymond Hall prepared this paper under the supervision of Robert F. Hale, R. William Thomas, and Michael Miller. Michael O'Hanlon developed most elements of the options and wrote the paper; Eugene Bryton and Raymond Hall assisted in devising the options and conducted the cost analysis. All three wish to thank Dunbar Lockwood of the Arms Control Association; a number of individuals employed by the Department of Energy; and Jim Werner, Tom Cochran, Stan Norris, and Chris Paine of the Natural Resources Defense Council. (Of course, the assistance of these individuals and organizations implies no responsibility for the final product, which rests exclusively with CBO.) The iv IMPLEMENTING START II March 1993 authors also thank Richard Fernandez and David Mosher of CBO for their contributions. Paul L. Houts edited the paper, Christian Spoor provided editorial assistance, and Cynthia Cleveland prepared it for publication. Robert D. Reischauer Director March 1993 CONTENTS SUMMARY 1 I INTRODUCTION 7 H THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES 11 Offensive Nuclear Weapons 11 DOE Activities to Design and Develop New Nuclear Warheads 20 Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence Activities 22 Missile Defenses 24 Further Arms Control Measures 26 III BUDGETARY SAVINGS 33 Average Annual Savings of $4 Billion to $7 Billion Would Occur in 1994-2010 33 Savings Would Add to Substantial Reductions Already Realized 33 Much of the Savings Could Be Realized Quickly 35 Uncertainties Exist in the Estimates 37 IV THE ALTERNATIVES AND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY: DETERRENCE, DEFENSE, SAFETY, AND NONPROLIFERATION 39 Options Provide Strong Deterrent 39 Options May Contribute to Nuclear Nonproliferation 46 Option II in Particular Could Enhance Warhead Security and Safety 49 Options Would Forgo Certain Possible Improvements in Warhead Safety 49 vi IMPLEMENTING START II March 1993 Options Would Provide Nationwide Missile Defenses 50 Conclusions 52 APPENDIXES A Additional Tables 55 B Department of Energy Weapons Activities Under the Bush Administration's Plan and the Options 61 TABLES S-l. Cost Savings Under CBO Options Compared with the Bush Administration's Plan 3 1. Broad Characteristics of the Approaches 13 2. U.S. Average Annual Costs and Savings Under CBO Options, 1994-2010 34 3. Annual Savings Under CBO Options Compared with the Bush Administration's Plan, 1994-1997 36 4. Estimated Nuclear Forces of the United States and Other Countries, 1992 and 2000 41 A-l. Strategic Nuclear Delivery Vehicles and Associated Platforms Under START II 55 A-2. Department of Energy Weapons Programs 56 A-3. Numbers of Strategic Missile Defense Systems 57 A-4. Remaining Costs for Selected Acquisition and Modification Programs 58 A-5. Survivable U.S. Nuclear Forces, Assuming Russian First Strike and No U.S. Alert 59 CONTENTS vii A-6. Illustrative Sets of Targets in a Large Military-Industrial Economy 60 B-l. Department of Energy Budgets for Defense Activities 67 BOXES 1. The Start II Treaty 14 2. Tankers 19 SUMMARY If ratified and fully carried out, the START II Treaty and the 1991 START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) Treaty that preceded it could have profound effects. Multiple-warhead land-based missiles would be eliminated, and deployed forces would decline by about two-thirds-to 3,500 strategic (long-range) warheads and perhaps 8,000 total warheads each for the United States and Russia. START II would, however, only establish ceilings on the number and capacity of the land-based missiles, bombers, and submarines that deliver long-range, or strategic, nuclear weapons. The treaty does not prescribe any cuts in shorter-range, or theater, nuclear forces or in actual inventories of nuclear warheads. Nor does the treaty directly affect other aspects of nuclear forces that significantly influence costs, including missile defenses, Department of Energy activities that produce and maintain nuclear warheads, and intelligence activities. As the proposed START II treaty is debated, therefore, the Congress may consider alternative approaches to the nature of U.S. nuclear forces that will be maintained under its various limits. This Congressional Budget Office paper analyzes the Bush Administration's plan for nuclear forces submitted in January 1992, and amended to reflect the START II treaty signed in January 1993. It also develops and scrutinizes two illustrative options for implementing START II in ways that would reduce the defense budget below levels anticipated in the Bush plan and that might also help curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The options are designed to preserve the most modern and capable elements of U.S. nuclear forces. Still, they would provide less insurance against the possibility of a surprise nuclear attack on the United States and the possibility of major technological breakthroughs that made existing U.S. nuclear systems more vulnerable. The remaining level of insurance may, however, be adequate for the post-Cold War era. The options are not exhaustive, but they do show two possible ways in which less expensive~yet still capable and flexible-nuclear forces might be preserved. 2 IMPLEMENTING START II March 1993 THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN Under the Bush Administration's plan for nuclear forces submitted in January 1992, modified to reflect START II, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the United States would retain at least 8,000 nuclear warheads in all. The cost for all U.S. nuclear forces and nuclear-related activities would average nearly $42 billion a year between fiscal years 1994 and 2010. (All costs and savings are expressed in constant 1993 dollars of budget authority.) Compared with earlier plans, the current Bush plan envisions important economies in bomber and missile programs-such as ending the production of B-2 bombers; canceling the small intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program; and reducing deployed submarine, bomber, and missile forces. Under the plan, budgetary savings would average some $16 billion a year compared with spending plans as they existed in 1990. Despite these reductions, the Bush Administration's plan would retain several vigorous programs--as its hefty price tag might suggest. It would maintain three different types of long-range or strategic systems that can deliver nuclear warheads; it also would develop and deploy multilayered defenses against ballistic missile attacks. In addition, it would continue substantial efforts to research and develop new nuclear warheads and would maintain an extensive intelligence network responsible for tracking the nuclear weapons programs and forces of other countries. OPTION I: MAKE FURTHER REDUCTIONS IN U.S. FORCES Option I in this paper assumes further changes in U.S. forces that would reduce costs while possibly reinforcing nuclear nonproliferation efforts. Reductions occur in all three main "legs" of the strategic nuclear triad-- bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles deployed on nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines. Reductions also occur in the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program to develop protection against missile attack, Department of Energy (DOE) activities to build nuclear warheads, and Department of Defense activities that provide certain types of intelligence information on other countries' nuclear forces. The specific
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arctic Security and Outer Space
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF Byers, M. (2020). Arctic Security and Outer Space. Scandinavian MILITARY STUDIES Journal of Military Studies, 3(1), pp. 183–196. DOI: https://doi. org/10.31374/sjms.56 RESEARCH ARTICLE Arctic Security and Outer Space Michael Byers Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia, CA. This article was delivered in Nuuk, Greenland, as the keynote speech at the Signature Conference of the Royal Danish Defence College, on 2 October 2019. It builds on an earlier piece: ‘Cold, dark, and dangerous: international cooperation in the arctic and space,’ Polar Record 55(1), 32–47, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247419000160 [email protected] Journalists often portray the Arctic and Space as rife with economic competition, contested territorial claims, and impending conflicts. In actuality, there is extensive and ongoing coopera- tion between Russia and Western states in both regions. A number of factors common to the Arctic and to Space contribute to this ongoing cooperation, including ‘complex interdependence’ and widely agreed rules of international law. This article focuses on three further common factors: the ‘cold, dark, and dangerous’ character of the regions; the absence of substantial ‘weaponisation’; and the relative ease with which information about military activities may be gathered in the Arctic and Space, for instance through Space-based technologies. The latter factor enables Arctic and Space-faring states to avoid classic ‘security dilemmas’. Keywords: Arctic; Space; Security; International Cooperation; International Law; Russia; NATO 1. Introduction The Arctic is closely connected to Outer Space (‘Space’). The Arctic climate is a consequence of Earth’s orbital mechanics, most notably the tilt of the planet, which leads to the absence of sunlight in winter and to 24-hour sunlight in summer.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia Outer Space Treaty Modifications
    Russia Outer Space Treaty Modifications vengesTully still onside. refashions ineluctably while pleural Woodie libel that bullaries. Bothersome Sigfried coapt spikily. Occultist Ian The program enriched by further declares that during outer space station elements of the original of the initial major advances in space debris and, who put all personnel to And we thank those nations which have had the courage to do so already. The relevance of this case for the treatment of the space commons may be somewhat speculative since currently the General Agreement on Trade in Services does not apply to launch services. Outer Space Treaty have been expanded and reaffirmed into new specific international conventions and agreements, Dr. Special responsibility to russia under international laws or russia outer space treaty modifications to establish relevant to make its space. Bilibino Energy Hub, however, and the American environment that is conducive to innovation as well as private sector operations and growth is vital. Removing such weapons from Europe would not require NATO to eliminate either nuclear first use or response options. Supplementary Procedures for Large, the Outer Space Treaty and the UN Charter make its military UN applications clearly not inconsistent with its wider civil object and purposes. Party would be grouped into force application sponsored conference, modifications would be willing, mobilised one hundred options, russia outer space treaty modifications essential for. Moon Treaty which provides that the placing of vehicles on the surface of the moon does not constitute an appropriation. Despite ongoing problems which it free for outer space treaty modifications essential in russia outer space treaty modifications made.
    [Show full text]
  • 10. Ballistic Missile Defence and Nuclear Arms Control
    10. Ballistic missile defence and nuclear arms control SHANNON N. KILE I. Introduction In 2001 the international controversy over the United States’ missile defence plans and the future of the 1972 Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty) came to a head. On 13 December, President George W. Bush announced that the USA would withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Bush’s announcement was widely expected and did not undermine commitments made by Russia and the USA the previous month to further reduce their nuclear arsenals. Against the background of improving political relations, Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin had pledged to make significant new cuts in US and Russian strategic nuclear forces. As the year ended, however, there was disagreement between Russia and the USA over whether these reductions would be made within the framework of an arms control treaty or as parallel, non-legally binding initiatives. This chapter reviews the principal developments in missile defence and nuclear arms control in 2001. Section II describes the US administration’s decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and assesses the reaction of Russia and other states. It also examines changes in the US programme to develop and deploy a missile defence system designed to protect the United States and its allies from a limited ballistic missile attack. Section III examines the Russian and US commitments to make further nuclear force reductions. It also notes the completion of the reductions in strategic nuclear delivery vehicles (SNDVs) and accountable warheads mandated by the 1991 Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START I Treaty).
    [Show full text]
  • Arms Control – II
    CSIS_______________________________ Center for Strategic and International Studies 1800 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 775-3270 For Additional material see: CSIS.ORG Comment to: [email protected] Concepts of Arms Control – II Global Controls and East- West Agreements Anthony H. Cordesman Senior Fellow for Strategic Assessment May 2000 Copyright Anthony H. Cordesman, all rights reserved. Concepts of Arms Control II – Key Agreements 5/17/00 Page 2 Table of Contents Part One: The Global Tools at Hand: Strategic Nuclear Forces and the Impact of START ......................................................................................................................................4 The Nuclear Dimension ..........................................................................................................5 US, Russian, and Ukrainian Strategic Nuclear Forces Declared for Start I...............................7 The US, Russian, and Ukrainian Strategic Nuclear Triad Declared for Start I..........................8 US and Russian Deployed Strategic Nuclear Forces................................................................9 US, Russian, and Ukrainian ICBMs Declared for Start I .......................................................10 US and Russian Deployed ICBM Missiles ............................................................................11 US, Russian, and Ukrainian ICBM Warheads Declared for Start I.........................................12 US, Russian, and Ukrainian SLBMs Declared for Start I.......................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • START II Treaty*
    552 THE INTERNATIONAL LAWYER the Tribunal should be deemed equivalent to requests by a foreign government under such a treaty and as authorizing extradition to the Tribunal; (2) incorpo- rate the pertinent language of selected articles of a modern extradition treaty relating to the issues requiring particular regulation; and (3) preclude the denial of extradition on the basis that the crimes charged before the Tribunal are "political offenses." III. Conclusion The Section of International Law and Practice believes that the ABA should support the establishment of the Tribunal and urge Congress to promptly adopt implementing legislation to enable the President of the United States to give full support to the Tribunal. The Section further believes that the ABA should urge that every effort be made to assure that due process and procedural guarantees are fully respected in the implementation of the Tribunal's mandate. Endorsement of the Tribunal through adoption of the accompanying recom- mendation by the American Bar Association will further the process begun by the United Nations to prosecute those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. In addition, it will strengthen the ability of the U.S. Government to effect the implementation of the Tribunal's mandate in a manner consistent with due process and procedural guarantees and will lend support to the U.S. Congress in adopting appropriate implementing legislation. Such an endorsement by the ABA will thus further Goal VIII of the Association-to advance the rule of law in the world. Respectfully submitted, Louis B. Sohn Chair Section of International August 1993 Law and Practice II.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
    2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 2–27 May 2005 New York 2005 NPT Review Conference 2–27 May 2005, New York C O N T E N T S 1. THE 2005 NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE IAEA IN RELATION TO THE NPT 3. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RELATING TO NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION 4. DECISIONS AND RESOLUTION ADOPTED AT THE 1995 NPT REVIEW AND EXTENSION CONFERENCE 5. FINAL DOCUMENT OF THE 2000 NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE 6. LIST OF STATES THAT HAVE RATIFIED OR ACCEDED TO THE NPT AS OF 1 MARCH 2005 7. TEXT OF THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS 2005 NPT Review Conference 2–27 May 2005, New York Ambassador Sérgio de Queiroz Duarte (Brazil) President-designate of the 2005 NPT Review Conference Media Contacts for the 2005 NPT Review Conference Mr. Michael Cassandra Mr. Nikolai Rogosaroff United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs S-3151A S-3170F Telephone: (212)963-7714 Telephone: 917-367-2158 Fax: (917)367-5369 Fax: 212-963-8892 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] 2005 NPT Review Conference 1 2–27 May 2005, New York THE 2005 REVIEW CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS The 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the terminated in 1949 without the achievement of this Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons objective, due to serious political differences between (NPT) will meet at the United Nations in New York from the major Powers.
    [Show full text]
  • Extending Russia Competing from Advantageous Ground
    Extending Russia Competing from Advantageous Ground James Dobbins, Raphael S. Cohen, Nathan Chandler, Bryan Frederick, Edward Geist, Paul DeLuca, Forrest E. Morgan, Howard J. Shatz, Brent Williams C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR3063 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0021-5 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2019 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: Pete Soriano/Adobe Stock Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report documents research and analysis conducted as part of the RAND Corporation research project Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground, sponsored by the Army Quadrennial Defense Review Office, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-8, Headquarters, Department of the Army.
    [Show full text]
  • Outer Space and Global Security
    UNIDIR/2003/26 Outer Space and Global Security UNIDIR United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research Geneva, Switzerland Project Ploughshares Canada Waterloo, Canada The Simons Centre for Peace and Disarmament Studies Vancouver, Canada NOTE Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. * * * The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. UNIDIR/2003/26 Copyright © United Nations, 2003 All rights reserved UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No. GV.E.03.0.26 ISBN 92-9045-155-6 The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR)—an intergovernmental organization within the United Nations—conducts research on disarmament and security. UNIDIR is based in Geneva, Switzerland, the centre for bilateral and multilateral disarmament and non- proliferation negotiations, and home of the Conference on Disarmament. The Institute explores current issues pertaining to the variety of existing and future armaments, as well as global diplomacy and local entrenched tensions and conflicts. Working with researchers, diplomats, Government officials, NGOs and other institutions since 1980, UNIDIR acts as a bridge between the research community and Governments. UNIDIR’s activities are funded by contributions from Governments and donors foundations. The Institute’s web site can be found at URL: http://www.unidir.org Cover page: designed by Diego Oyarzún-Reyes (UNCTAD) iv CONTENTS Page Preface.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial, Military and Arms Control Trade-Offs
    Occasional Paper No. 10 Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs James Clay Moltz, ed. Special Joint Series on Missile/Space Issues CENTER FOR NONPROLIFERATION STUDIES University Mountbatten Centre for International Studies of Southampton THE CENTER FOR NONPROLIFERATION STUDIES The mission of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) is to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction by training the next generation of nonproliferation specialists and disseminating timely information and analysis. Dr. William C. Potter is the director of CNS, which has a staff of over 60 full-time personnel and approximately 65 student research assistants, with offices in Monterey, CA; Washington, DC; and Almaty, Kazakhstan. CNS is the largest nongovernmental organization in the United States devoted exclusively to research and training on nonproliferation issues. CNS gratefully acknowledges the support of the following funders and thanks them for their commitment to our mission: the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Center for Global Partnership, the Compton Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the HKH Foundation, the Japan-United States Friendship Commission, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the John Merck Fund, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the Ploughshares Fund, the Prospect Hill Foundation, and the Scherman Foundation. For more information of the projects and publications of CNS, contact: Center for Nonproliferation Studies Monterey Institute of International Studies 460 Pierce Street Monterey, California 93940 USA Tel: 831.647.4154 Fax: 831.647.3519 Email: [email protected] Internet Web Site: http://cns.miis.edu CNS Publications Staff Editor-in-Chief Leonard S. Spector Editor Scott Parrish THE MOUNTBATTEN CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES The Mountbatten Centre for International Studies (MCIS) is based in the Politics Department of the University of Southampton, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • США И Россия: 210 Лет Дипломатических Отношений И Международной Коммуникации USA and Russia: 210 Years of Diplomatic Relations and International Communication
    УДК 930.85 НИР. Современная коммуникативистика (№ 3, 2017). 68:8–14 ОБЩИЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ КОММУНИКАТИВИСТИКИ США и Россия: 210 лет дипломатических отношений и международной коммуникации USA and Russia: 210 Years of Diplomatic Relations and International Communication DOI: 10.12737/ article_58fda885671132.23223626 Получено: 13 февраля 2017 г. / Одобрено: 17 февраля 2017 г. / Опубликовано: 17 мая 2017 г. Р.О. Райнхардт R.O. Raynkhardt Канд. экон. наук, преподаватель кафедры Ph.D. (World Economy), Lecturer at the Department дипломатии МГИМО МИД России, for Diplomatic Studies Россия, 119454, Москва, пр-т Вернадского, 76, Moscow State Institute of International Relations e-mail: [email protected] (University), 76, Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454, Russia, e-mail: [email protected] Аннотация Abstract Статья посвящена 210-летнему юбилею установления дипломати- The article is dedicated to the 210th anniversary of establishment of dip- ческих отношений между США и Россией и раскрывает историю их lomatic relations between the United States of America and Russia and развития. Рассмотрены основные вопросы российско-американ- casts light upon their genesis and development. It provides an acute insight ской повестки на протяжении более двухсот лет. При комплексном into the key issues of US-Russian agenda within a time span of more than исследовании предмета автор делает акцент на отдельных кейсах, 200 years. Along with giving a holistic picture of the subject, the author ключевых с точки зрения понимания текущей геополитической конъ- focuses on specific cases crucial for understanding the current geopolitical юнктуры, определяемой взаимодействием двух стран. Анализируя juncture shaped by the interaction of the two nations. With an emphasis on различия в их политической культуре, автор выявляет важную роль differences in political culture, he outlines the important role of cross-cultural межкультурной коммуникации в рамках соответствующих историче- communication within the framework of the respective cases.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Fall of START II: the Russian View
    The Rise and Fall of START II: The Russian View Alexander A. Pikayev Non-Proliferation Project GLOBAL POLICY PROGRAM Number 6 September 1999 THE RISE AND FALL OF START II © 1999 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the Carnegie Endowment. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 483-7600 Fax: (202) 483-1840 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ceip.org Carnegie Endowment Working Papers Carnegie Endowment Working Papers present new research by Endowment associates and their collaborators from other institutions. The series includes new time-sensitive research and key excerpts from larger works in progress. Comments from readers are most welcome; please reply to the authors at the address above or by e-mail to [email protected]. * * * This paper expands on a chapter originally written for a forthcoming study on the non- proliferation regime, Repairing the Regime, edited by Joseph Cirincione and published by Routledge and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Toby Dalton, project associate with the Carnegie Non-Proliferation Project, provided extensive editing and production assistance toward the completion of this working paper About the Author Alexander A. Pikayev is a scholar-in-residence at the Carnegie Moscow Center, where he directs activities for the Non-Proliferation Project. Dr. Pikayev was previously a director of the section on arms control and nonproliferation at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences; and chief counselor of the State Duma Committee on Defense (1996–1997) and Subcommittee on Arms Control and International Security (1994–1995).
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the ABM Treaty in Russia
    A History of the ABM Treaty in Russia Pavel Podvig February 2000 PONARS Policy Memo 109 Center for Arms Control, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology In the current debate about the future of the ABM treaty, Russia's official position is that the treaty is "the cornerstone of strategic stability" and therefore an attempt to modify it would destroy the foundations of US-Russian nuclear arms control. Although Russian officials claim that this official position has never changed, a closer look reveals that Russia's attitude toward the ABM treaty has undergone a number of changes in recent years. ! It is also interesting to look at the history of negotiations on demarcation between strategic and non-strategic systems, for it reflects the inconsistency between the Russian and US approaches to the issue. It also shows that Russia and the United States share responsibility for the current uncertainty over the future of the ABM Treaty. The Soviet Union and the ABM Treaty If we look at the first fifteen years of the ABM treaty history, we will find out that as a rule it was the Soviet Union that was on the defensive. The United States repeatedly raised questions about Soviet compliance with the treaty, although most problems fell into "gray" areas of the treaty. To eliminate these, the United States and the Soviet Union worked out a number of agreed statements that regulated the disputed issues, such as "testing in ABM mode." In 1983 the United States announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) ballistic missile defense program, which for a long time became the focus of the ABM Treaty debate.
    [Show full text]